March 2015 - Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc
by Mary Wong March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Hello - I meant to send the follow up message below to everyone, thanks! From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:26 To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc > Hi Stephanie and everyone, > > Others with more experience may be able to shed more light on the intent and > history behind this provision in the WG Guidelines, but FWIW I believe the > cost issue relates to the WG making a more formal request to the GNSO Council, > to get an educational briefing or similar advice, e.g. from a subject matter > expert or consultant. This could involve technical, legal or other specialty > knowledge for which a paid opinion may be appropriate. However, the provision > also permits a WG to seek input from “self formed groups and/or individuals” > on a more informal basis, so my assumption is that the Guidelines provide a WG > with the flexibility to consider which course of action would be the more > efficacious and appropriate for its purpose. > > Cheers > Mary > > Mary Wong > Senior Policy Director > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 > Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org > > > From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin(a)mail.utoronto.ca> > Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 19:16 > To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc > >> THanks Mary, very helpful. Since there is no cost, my question would be, why >> not? >> cheers Stephanie >> >> On 2015-03-23 19:11, Mary Wong wrote: >>> Hello everyone, to follow up on Graeme¹s message, please note that Section >>> 4.4 of the GNSO¹s Working Group Guidelines contains the following >>> language: >>> >>> "If the WG determines that it needs additional educational briefings >>> occurring upfront or as issues emerge during deliberations, it should >>> identify its specific requests to the [Chartering Organization] including >>> subject matter(s), type(s) of expertise, objectives, and costs. If >>> additional costs are involved, prior approval must be obtained from the >>> [Chartering Organization]. Additionally, a WG may, at any stage throughout >>> its deliberations, decide to seek input from self formed groups and/or >>> individuals with the aim of further informing WG members about matters >>> that fall within the remit of the WG and which are of interest to the >>> ICANN community." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> We hope this is helpful. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Mary >>> >>> Mary Wong >>> Senior Policy Director >>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >>> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Graeme Bunton <gbunton(a)tucows.com> <mailto:gbunton@tucows.com> >>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 18:44 >>> To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> , >>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> , >>> "Metalitz, Steven" <met(a)msk.com> <mailto:met@msk.com> >>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc >>> >>>> Hi Kathy, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the suggestion. There's little doubt that John would have >>>> some interesting, and hopefully illuminating experience in this area. >>>> However, I think we're too close to tomorrow's call to have him join us. >>>> >>>> I'd like to suggest that after tomorrow's call we can take stock of >>>> where we're at, and decide if John can help us with his insight. Once >>>> there, we can then extend an invitation or not as the case may be. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Graeme >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/23/2015 6:14 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>>>> I forgot to add that John Berryhill would like to join us tomorrow. He >>>>> can speak from very direct experience to the difference between >>>>> working with "agents" of a copyright and trademark owner, or the >>>>> trademark/copyright owners and attorney directly. I think it will be >>>>> valuable insight - and inform our important discussion! >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Kathy >>>>> >>>>> : >>>>>> Hi Kiran, >>>>>> Thank you for your comments. The agency issue worries some of us >>>>>> greatly. By what authority is the "agency" established; what actual >>>>>> knowledge of the a) trademark or copyright owner's rights are there, >>>>>> b) by what expertise can he/she make an assessment of infringement >>>>>> and c) by what right, ability or authority can the signatory bind the >>>>>> trademark or copyright owner to the allegations being made. >>>>>> >>>>>> I should note that the proposed changes follow the DMCA: for a Reveal >>>>>> Subpoena, the request must be done by an attorney for the Requester >>>>>> or by the Requester himself/herself/itself (in the US we call it "pro >>>>>> se"). >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Kathy >>>>>> : >>>>>>> Hi Kathy, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for forwarding this to the group, and special thanks for >>>>>>> forwarding with enough time to review before the call! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We can certainly discuss in more depth on the call tomorrow, but I >>>>>>> am not a fan of the changes in Section II. I'm concerned about the >>>>>>> level of minutiae in the language, and I'm wondering how and why >>>>>>> that level of micromanagement will be helpful/probative information >>>>>>> to the Service Provider. In very large companies, the trademark >>>>>>> owner/president/VP/partner, etc. isn't actually involved directly in >>>>>>> the enforcement activity. It should be enough to demonstrate agency, >>>>>>> as the previous language did. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps I will have more later, but I wanted to float that to the >>>>>>> group before the call. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kiran >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil >>>>>>> Policy Counselor >>>>>>> MarkMonitor >>>>>>> 415.222.8318 (t) >>>>>>> 415.419.9138 (m) >>>>>>> www.markmonitor.com <http://www.markmonitor.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org >>>>>>> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy >>>>>>> Kleiman >>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:19 AM >>>>>>> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org; Metalitz, Steven; Graeme Bunton >>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Revised Reveal Doc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised >>>>>>> Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types >>>>>>> of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent >>>>>>> research: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, >>>>>>> the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct >>>>>>> knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to >>>>>>> represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending >>>>>>> discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this >>>>>>> section) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of >>>>>>> high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is >>>>>>> also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the >>>>>>> Request) including >>>>>>> a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider >>>>>>> challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's >>>>>>> information? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best and have a good rest of weekend, >>>>>>> Kathy >>>> -- >>>> _________________________ >>>> Graeme Bunton >>>> Manager, Management Information Systems >>>> Manager, Public Policy >>>> Tucows Inc. >>>> PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai >>>> -pdp-wg >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai >>>> -pdp-wg >>

5 8

Clarification (Re: Proposed F2F meeting in Buenos Aires - final selection)
by Mary Wong March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

I¹ve been reminded that I did not include in my note the possibility that, for the Sunday/Wednesday evening slots, the times can be adjusted to some degree, e.g. if it would be better to do a session from 7-9 p.m. instead, which would give participants a short break from the day¹s proceedings before our F2F sessions. I am sorry for the omission please feel free to change your vote if this makes a difference, or if it will be easier for you, just send me an email and I¹ll be sure to include your email comments in our tally. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 11:37 To: PPSAI <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed F2F meeting in Buenos Aires - final selection > Dear WG members, > > The WG chairs would greatly appreciate it if you can spare just a minute for > just one more quick poll on the question of when we hold our face-to-face > meeting in Buenos Aires. > > The results of the first poll showed a preference for Friday 19 June by 9 > members, with 6 other members preferring the two-session option. Staff has > checked with other departments (e.g. Compliance) as to their planned sessions > for the week in order to minimize conflicts as much as possible. However, > please note that much still depends on variables that we cannot ascertain at > this stage, especially the question of how many sessions there will be on IANA > stewardship transition and accountability, and when these will take place. > Nonetheless, we venture to suggest that the most feasible times for the > two-session option would be Sunday 21 June (possibly from 4.30-7.30 or > 5.00-8.00 p.m.) and Wednesday 24 June (similar times as for Sunday). > > As such, we now have a choice to make as between Friday 19 June and a > combination of Sunday and Wednesday evenings as indicated above (though please > note that this may be subject to change). > > In order to assist the chairs with the final decision, which they hope to make > as soon as possible to enable those planning to be in Buenos Aires to confirm > their travel arrangements, here is the new poll: > http://doodle.com/2zt2s2pnfm2k3sy5. As with the earlier poll, it¹s been > designed to show the chairs which is everyone¹s first option please use the > Comments section if you have concerns, have no preference, or other comments. > For members who are not going to be in Buenos Aires, please note that full > remote participation facilities will be available for the F2F meeting. > > Thank you! FYI 19 members participated in the first poll, with 2 preferring no > F2F meeting and 1 voting for Friday 26 June. > > Cheers > Mary > > Mary Wong > Senior Policy Director > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 > Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org > > > > > > > >

8 8

Agenda and revised Disclosure document for WG meeting on Tuesday 24 March
by Mary Wong March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear all, The proposed agenda for the next WG meeting on Tuesday 24 March is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss proposed F2F facilitated meeting in Buenos Aires 3. Continue discussion of Category F: draft Disclosure Framework for IP rights-holders (revised draft attached) 4. Next steps/next meeting Please note that the attached revised draft Disclosure Framework has been updated to reflect only the following sets of revisions: (1) those presented to the WG on 16 March and updated following that call, including in specific regard to Section C(5); and (2) newer edits sent by Kathy yesterday (22 March). Our understanding is that some WG members may not have received Kathy¹s revisions, so we have incorporated them all into this latest draft version. In addition, I reproduce here in full Kathy¹s email accompanying her suggested edits: "Hi All, Steve and I talked on Friday, and he asked me to circulate a Revised Reveal document -- which is attached. This document has three types of changes based on our discussion last Tuesday and subsequent research: 1. To the title (reset pending further discussion) 2. To Section II, the Request Templates to clarify the requester and his/her direct knowledge of the alleged infringement and legal authority to represent the Requester, and 3. Annex (reset to original pending discussion with drafters over the narrow goals and intents of this section) All other edits remain - to continue our excellent discussion of high standards for disclosure, human rights issues, etc. There is also much to discuss regarding follow-up processes (after the Request) including a) when are appeals allowed and for whom, and b) how does a Provider challenge an alleged "wrongful disclosure" of its Customer's information? Best and have a good rest of weekend, Kathy² Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council resolutions 19 March 2015
by Glen de Saint Géry March 20, 2015

March 20, 2015

FYI Dear Councillors, Please find the resolutions passed by the GNSO Council in its meeting on Thursday, 19 March 2015. These are also published on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions Consent agenda Council confirmed the selection of the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) Working Group for a facilitated face-to-face meeting at ICANN53 in Buenos Aires. Motion to implement the recommendations of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group in relation to Issue Scoping on a trial basis 1. In March 2014 the GNSO and GAC formed a joint consultation group (CG) to explore mechanisms to facilitate GAC early engagement in GNSO Policy Development Processes. 2. As per its charter, the CG's deliberations have focused on two tracks, namely 1) a mechanism for day-to-day ongoing cooperation and 2) a mechanism for GAC early engagement in the GNSO PDP (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsogcgogeeipdp/3.+Charter) 3. As part of its deliberations on track 2), the CG put forward a set of preliminary recommendations concerning the issue scoping phase of the PDP which were reviewed and discussed by the GAC and the GNSO during the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-cg-issue-scoping-27jan15-en.pdf) 4. The GAC noted in its Communiqué (ICANN52), that 'The GAC met the GNSO and agreed, on a trial basis and subject to ongoing adjustments as necessary, to a mechanism proposed by the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group for early engagement at the issues scoping phase of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). This includes formation of a GAC Quick-Look Mechanism Committee. The arrangements will allow for an early indication in the PDP of whether the issue has a standing GAC advice and whether it has public policy implications, and hence is of interest to the GAC. It will also enable the GNSO to factor this in and the GAC to prepare input to be provided at the relevant stages of the PDP. This would not limit the GAC's existing ability to give advice to the ICANN Board'. 5. Based on these discussions and input received, the CG recommends that the GAC and GNSO Council implement these recommendations on a trial basis, in order to assess their effectiveness in facilitating GAC early engagement in the GNSO PDP. 6. In the meantime, the CG will continue its review and deliberations on the other phases of the GNSO PDP, which may result in further proposals of additional recommendations for consideration. RESOLVED 1. The GNSO Council agrees to jointly implement with the GAC, the preliminary recommendations by the CG concerning the issue scoping phase of the PDP as outlined here http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-cg-issue-scoping-27jan15-en.pdf on a trial basis for a minimum of 3 consecutive GNSO PDP's immediately following the adoption of the motion. 2. Following the end of this trial period, the CG is expected to report back to the GAC and GNSO Council on the effectiveness of these recommendations as a result of the experiences gained during the trial period. Furthermore, the CG is expected to make a recommendation as to whether or not the preliminary recommendations concerning the issue scoping phase of the PDP should be permanently implemented, either in their current form, or with possible modifications based on the further work of the CG including experience gained during the trial. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Proposed F2F meeting in Buenos Aires - final selection
by Mary Wong March 19, 2015

March 19, 2015

Dear WG members, The WG chairs would greatly appreciate it if you can spare just a minute for just one more quick poll on the question of when we hold our face-to-face meeting in Buenos Aires. The results of the first poll showed a preference for Friday 19 June by 9 members, with 6 other members preferring the two-session option. Staff has checked with other departments (e.g. Compliance) as to their planned sessions for the week in order to minimize conflicts as much as possible. However, please note that much still depends on variables that we cannot ascertain at this stage, especially the question of how many sessions there will be on IANA stewardship transition and accountability, and when these will take place. Nonetheless, we venture to suggest that the most feasible times for the two-session option would be Sunday 21 June (possibly from 4.30-7.30 or 5.00-8.00 p.m.) and Wednesday 24 June (similar times as for Sunday). As such, we now have a choice to make as between Friday 19 June and a combination of Sunday and Wednesday evenings as indicated above (though please note that this may be subject to change). In order to assist the chairs with the final decision, which they hope to make as soon as possible to enable those planning to be in Buenos Aires to confirm their travel arrangements, here is the new poll: http://doodle.com/2zt2s2pnfm2k3sy5. As with the earlier poll, it¹s been designed to show the chairs which is everyone¹s first option please use the Comments section if you have concerns, have no preference, or other comments. For members who are not going to be in Buenos Aires, please note that full remote participation facilities will be available for the F2F meeting. Thank you! FYI 19 members participated in the first poll, with 2 preferring no F2F meeting and 1 voting for Friday 26 June. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0

MP3 PPSAI WG - Tuesday 17 March 2015 at 1500 UTC
by Terri Agnew March 17, 2015

March 17, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working group call held on Tuesday 17 March 2015 at 15:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-17mar15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#m<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>ar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Frank Michlick - Individual Justin Macy - BC Val Sherman - IPC Griffin Barnett - IPC Kathy Kleiman - NCSG Darcy Southwell - RrSG Todd Williams - IPC Steve Metalitz - IPC Graeme Bunton - RrSG Jim Bikoff - IPC Holly Raiche - ALAC Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Volker Greimann - RrSG Alex Deacon -IPC Sarah Wyld - RrSG Stephanie Perrin - NCSG James Bladel - RrSG Tatiana Khramtsova - RrSG Susan Kawaguchi - BC Terri Stumme - BC Phil Corwin - BC Luc Seufer - RrSG Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP David Hughes - IPC Chris Pelling - RrSG Paul McGrady - IPC Susan Prosser - RrSG David Cake - NCSG Apologies : Don Blumenthal - RySG Lindsay Hamilton-Reid - RrSG Richard Leaning - no soi Michele Neylon- RrSG ICANN staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings Danielle Andela Ariel Liang Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 17 March 2015 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 17 March 2015 Kathy K:Hi All! Val Sherman:Jim Bikoff also on audio bridge Terri Agnew:I have added Jim to attendance list Terri Agnew:Susan Kawaguchi is on audio Mary Wong:Suggest we stay consistent with using "Disclosure" (in this instance) rather than Reveal? Terri Agnew:Frank Michlick has joined Terri Agnew:Stephanie Perrin has joined Terri Agnew:David Hughes has joined audio Terri Agnew:David Cake has joined Graeme Bunton:You can tell James has been logging in to CCWG/ICG calls to often, as he has the GNSO tag on his name Kiran Malancharuvil:Someone get James some coffee! Holly Raiche:We were picking what was seen as a hard case James Bladel-GNSO:Thanks, Steve. Sorry for the side-track. Mary Wong:In the Initial Report, we will make it clear that this fairly detailed framework applies to IP requestors, but is an illustrative example of a disclosure framework that can be a model for other categories of requestors. Do note that the WG has yet to discuss whether and how this may apply to, e.g. LEA and other requestors. Mary Wong:It may be that we don't have sufficient depth of expertise or time to be as detailed with these other categories, in which case we may want to consider calling out this point for public comment. Graeme Bunton:thank you James Bladel - Happy Now, Graeme?::0 Bladel - Happy Now, Graeme?:;) Terri Agnew:Luc Seufer has joined Holly Raiche:It's even earlier in Sydney Kiran Malancharuvil:You win Holly! Kiran Malancharuvil::) Volker Greimann:nothing much happens in August in Paris Kathy K:Sorry "Note" is not intended for final text... Kiran Malancharuvil:More happens in August in Paris than in Spain! (But for the record, everyone stays pretty well connected) Volker Greimann:true, kiran Stephanie Perrin:I think the Nordics take the longest holidays.. Val Sherman:Things happen all over the world at various times of year Val Sherman:these are not reasons to refuse disclosure in my opinion Kiran Malancharuvil:Good point Val and Steve. Kathy K:+1 James Paul McGrady:My call was cut off in the parking garage just as Kathy was getting started. Sorry if I end up asking question about items already covered. Kathy K:the Providers has not found adequate reasons for disclosure... Val Sherman:sorry! Val Sherman:old Kathy K:Provider singular... Luc Seufer:even for those slam dunk cases, you need an arbitrator to render a ruling Luc Seufer:registrars and other prospective PP aren't as knwoledgeable as arbitrators from NAF Mary Wong:Agree with Kiran re "slam dunk" - culturally difficult. Stephanie Perrin:How about "irrefutable"? Holly Raiche:Maybe replace slam duck with something like compelling Graeme Bunton:Slam Duck is a hilarious typo. Luc Seufer:that's the down under version Susan Kawaguchi:I have to drop off for another call. Agree with removing slam dunk, also not comfortable with anything after including but not limited to. Val Sherman:I like compelling Stephanie Perrin:Slam dunk implies that there is really no credible alternative, whereas compelling is not....there could be two compelling arguments, hence the need for complex case review,,,, Holly Raiche:Sorry re he spelling - but I'm glad Graeme likes it. Bladel - Happy Now, Graeme?:It's March, Slam Dunk works for me. :P Philip Corwin:Must depart for another call. regrets Terri Agnew:goodbye philip Kiran Malancharuvil:Agree with Steve that a Battered Woman's Shelter that has infringing content on its website is not excused from infringing. Kiran Malancharuvil:Although it is clear that those types of cases are very dangerous and we should not reveal locations willy nilly, I think we're trying to put good standards in place to protect all. Stephanie Perrin:I think we are conflating risk and reasonable grounds here, agree that if a requestor submits a slam-dunk case regarding a woman's shelter, the issue of the risk of revelation must be treated separately. Stephanie Perrin:A process diagram might be helpful here. Graeme Bunton:that's a good point Stephanie Kathy K:Lots to discuss in appeals Luc Seufer:Agreed Stephanie, we had a case where someone was asking us to suspend a website because it was hosting illegal material (phishing) and it appeared that it was the complainant who hacked the website of our customer to place the illegal content to have it suspended. Stephanie Perrin:@Luc yes and I am assured by the folks who defend free speech that this is a constant problem....in fact, when we were setting up the recommendations for anonymous domain registration in the EWG, I agreed to enhanced security mechanisms because those who need anonymous registration also need enhanced security to defend against constant attempts to tar them with malware etc, Mary Wong:Is it possible to combine I.C and the new III.G into a single paragraph somewhere? Kathy K:It certainly bears repeating here...perhaps as a note? Luc Seufer:I would keep both to make it crystal clear Holly Raiche:It's the jurisdiction in which the lawyeer practices David Cake:Nationality of the lawyer perhaps not, but fair use vs fair dealing jurisdiction might be significant in some circumstances Mary Wong:@Holly, @David - yes, I'm from Singapore but was employed by a law firm n its New York and then Brussels and London offices. Mary Wong:So may be preferable to specify jurisdiction rather than nationality? Kiran Malancharuvil:Much prefer jurisdiction to nationality Kiran Malancharuvil:Yes Steve, and while we recognize the vulnerability issues, that should be accounted for within the text and equally applied to all Val Sherman:+1 Steve -- need to add use examples if we go this route Mary Wong:FWIW there are ICANN staff members who have worked on privacy, data protection issues Kathy K:Tx Steve, Tx All! Val Sherman:Can we briefly address F2F meeting dates? Graeme Bunton:That was a lot of heavy lifting from Kathy, Steve and others, thank you. Frank Michlick:Thank you Holly Raiche:Thanks all Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks to all drafters. So much work and much appreciated. Mary Wong:@Val, we're checking dates and chairs will likely decide in the next couple of days David Cake:Thanks Val Sherman:Thanks Mary! Val Sherman:thanks all!

1 0

An Edited Version of Draft Disclosure Text
by Kathy Kleiman March 17, 2015

March 17, 2015

All, The Agenda for our meeting tomorrow appears to set a goal of finishing our discussion on Category F-- "Conclude discussion of framework for Category F (see attached document)." While Staff has done a great job catching many changes we proposed (tx you!), there are more that have been proposed and not objected to. There are even more changes and edits that we have not gotten to as we have not yet moved to all topics, including Annexes, etc. Therefore, with respect and concern for the desire to move forward, I share a version with the changes we have proposed, and a few that we need to propose: - Section I.B that Providers be allowed to share information about Requestors who abuse their system (absent sanctions for abuse, which we have not yet defined, this is an alternative protection) -- and earlier proposed. - Section II.A,B,C that Requestors provide the name, address, telephone number of the trademark owner as well as his/her/its representative. The representative (such as an attorney) may or may not be in the same jurisdiction as the trademark or copyright owner, and we don't want to track down first the counsel and later the trademark owner. It should all be in one place... also, if the signatory is not the Trademark Owner, who are they? As their statement under Penalty of Perjury is set out as a protection for the Customer, who they are and under what color of authority they represent the IP owner is a key piece of information in this process. - Section III.A that 15 calendar days for a Customer response. We are told by groups engaged actively in the reveal process in other areas that 15 is really the minimum for receiving, researching, contacting experts, and responding. They actually recommend 30 days... - Section III.C.3 that Provider may act on this own information and research in the case Customer does not or is unable to respond (e.g., August action and Battered Women's Shelter, Neighborhood Safety Program, well-known magazine). - Section III.C.5 that Provider may adopt the standard of obvious clear-cut infringement absent clear or reasonable defense. - Section III.D adds "lack of" to the full list of pending proceedings which, if they are taking place, the Provider may choose not to act until completed. - Section III.G is the proposed new section: Nothing in this proposal shall prohibit a Provider from determining the Customer’s use of the Service may violate its terms of service and reveal the underlying information despite the criteria of this proposal not being met. - ANNEX: Many questions regarding the Annex, including whether an appeals process has been agreed to? If so, it should be balanced, with access to both Requestors and Customers, and limited so that Providers do not have to face an appeal of each and every decision - but only exceptions or controversies passing a high threshold. This draft tries to offer balancing language, but this is an area which we have not discussed I would ask the Chairs to spend at least one session on it before we finalize language and send it out for public comment. Certainly the standard for action in bad faith from the requestor should be "knowingly false representations to the Provider," not "knowingly false representations to the Provider with intent to deceive." Providing "intent to deceive" is an almost impossible standard requiring Providers and Customers to know what was in the head and heart of the Requestor. A knowingly false statement to the Provider on the few key pieces of information a Requestor is asked to provide should be sufficient -- especially in a matter as significant as a Reveal -- and sufficiently hard for a Provider or Customer to prove... Everything in "Track Changes." Doc attached. Best, Kathy

2 2

Poll fixed (Re: PPSAI WG F2F Meeting at ICANN53)
by Mary Wong March 16, 2015

March 16, 2015

Thanks for alerting me, Phil I¹m not sure what happened so I¹ve recreated the poll here: http://doodle.com/782mf9fgfrwyrszp. This new link should work; for those who have already completed the first poll, please accept my apologies for the inconvenience if you can use the new link as well to re-enter your preference that would be much appreciated. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 21:53 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG F2F Meeting at ICANN53 > I just tried to participate in this poll and when I got to the web page I > got a message telling me that I had already participated, or that someone had > participated using my invitation. > > So I am locked out. That needs to be fixed. > > > Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal > Virtualaw LLC > 1155 F Street, NW > Suite 1050 > Washington, DC 20004 > 202-559-8597/Direct > 202-559-8750/Fax > 202-255-6172/cell > > Twitter: @VlawDC > > "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey > > > From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces(a)icann.org > [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong (via > Doodle) > Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 8:31 PM > To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg(a)icann.org > Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG F2F Meeting at ICANN53 > > > Mary Wong invites you to participate in the Doodle poll "PPSAI WG F2F Meeting > at ICANN53." > > > <https://doodle.com/?tmail=poll_invitecontact_participant_invitation_with_me… > age&tlink=logo> > Hi there, > > Mary Wong (mary.wong(a)icann.org) invites you to participate in the Doodle poll > "PPSAI WG F2F Meeting at ICANN53." > Mary Wong says: Hello everyone, please indicate which one of the four poll > options (as discussed on the WG call this past Tuesday) is your most preferred > option for the proposed F2F meeting in Buenos Aires. Feel free to use the > comments section e.g. to indicate your second-best option as well. Thank you! > > Cheers > Mary > Participate now > <https://doodle.com/7mxu8qqnz9i2kgs8zxqbe5gn/private?tmail=poll_invitecontac… > participant_invitation_with_message&tlink=pollbtn> > What is Doodle? Doodle is a web service that helps Mary Wong to find a > suitable date for meeting with a group of people. Learn more about how Doodle > works. > <https://doodle.com/main.html?tlink=checkOutLink&tmail=poll_invitecontact_pa… > icipant_invitation_with_message> > You have received this e-mail because "Mary Wong" has invited you to > participate in the Doodle poll "PPSAI WG F2F Meeting at ICANN53." > Please note that this is a personal invitation that cannot be shared with > other poll participants. > Doodle AG, Werdstrasse 21, 8021 Zürich > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> > Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4299/9218 - Release Date: 03/03/15 >

6 6

Service Provider Action on Request - a proposed standard and compromise
by Kathy Kleiman March 16, 2015

March 16, 2015

Dear All, Since our important discussions of last week, a group has been working in the background to try to figure out a set of rules that would not bring ICANN directly into the Reveal process (the "Complex Case Advisory Group" concept) and that would not force Providers to voluntarily share and pool information and advice (something with potential competition implications). What we would propose is the addition of a standard to Section III, /Service Provider Action on Request /-- that the PPSAI Reveal under Category F be limited to "slam dunk" cases of obvious clear-cut infringement. Our model here is the light-weight URS procedure for suspending names in the New gTLDs. What we mean by "slam dunk" cases is cases of obvious clear-cut trademark and copyright infringement presented by the Requestor without clear or reasonable defenses presented by the Customer or visible to the Provider. The defenses set out for the URS include: that the registrant is commonly known by the name of the domain name (e.g., it is a his/her last names or longterm nickname), he/she/it is using the domain name and/or mark before the trademark existed, there is fair use or fair dealing, parody or tribute sites. Legitimate defenses might also include comparative advertising -- using a competitor's name in advertising comparing products or services in countries which such ads are legal. We further propose the addition of language to allow the Provider to take action of its own accord and the wording: "Nothing in this proposal shall prohibit a provider from determining the use of the service may violate its terms of service and reveal the underlying information despite the criteria of this proposal not being met." We have worked hard since our last meeting, and diligently over the weekend, and hope this moves us towards a reasonable and compromise. Best, Kathy

1 0

Agenda and updated documents for PPSAI WG call on 17 March 2015
by Mary Wong March 16, 2015

March 16, 2015

Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for the next WG meeting on 17 March 2015 is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Conclude discussion of framework for Category F (see attached document) 3. Next steps/next meeting Please note that the attached document is the latest version of the Disclosure Framework discussed last week, with the further addition of some draft language as well as two alternative mechanisms and a few questions intended to solicit public comment which are based on the suggestions discussed last week. These additions are being offered as draft language, in the hope that they will assist the WG with following up on and finalizing the points discussed. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

1 0